Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1887-06-06
INTERESTING LAW POINTS.
Recent Decisions tn supreme.
state and Federal Courts.

state and Federal Courts.
National Bank Sued in State Courts
The Supreme Court OF Georgia lately
held that when q national bank located
within the State sues out an attachment
in the State, and gives an attachment
bond, with local surety, 1t can be sued
in the courts of the State for damages
received by reason of the breach of the
bond. Continental National Bank VS..
Folsom.
Attachment, Issuance, Defect, Levy
The issuance of an attachment in part
nership name without stating the names
of the individuals composing the firm is
not such defect as will authorize the
dismissal of levy Hereunder, or the
rejection of the attachment when
offered in evidence on the trial of a
claim case growing out of the levy, ac.
cording to the decision of the Supreme
Court of Georgia in the case OF Gazan
VS.. Royce ct al.
Assignment for Creditors--Preference
Validity. According to the decision
of the Supreme Court OF Iodiana, in the
case of Schwab ct al. VS.. Lemon ct al,
in the absence of actual fraud deed of
assignment under the statute will be up.
held as a valid general assignment, not
withstanding provision in it that GER
tain creditors shall be preferred. Such
provision, the court holds, will be con.
irolled and anpulled by force Of the
statute.
Agreement Exempting Railroad Com.
pany from liability. - The Supreme
Court of Arkansas lately held void and
not binding an agreement made by a
person employed by railroad company
as brakeman to take upon himself all
risks incident to his position On the road,
and not to hold the railroad company
liable for any injury he might sustain
by accident or collision on the trains of
the road, or by defective machinery, or
carelessness, or misconduct OF himself or
any other employee of thes company.
Little Rock aud Fort Smith Railroad
Company VS.. Eubanks.
Bauk-Lien - Deposit - OEerdraft.-
A decision of interest to bankers was
lately rendered by Judge Gresham, in
the United States Circuit Court at Chi.
cago, in the case of Gillespie ct al. VS..
iho Cniou otoVhy htuS Ndtiuhhl Dallhs
II appears that the plaintiffs, Kansas
City firm, about October lat, 1855,
shipped herd of |, 100 head of cattle
to Chicago, consigning them to the com
mission firm OF Rappel, Sons & Co.,
drawing drafts for the approximate
value of the cattle. The consignees, be.
tween the 2l and 9th OF the month, sold
the cattle and deposited the money,
about $4,000. with the defendant bank,
at which they were at the time over
drawn to about the same amount. The
bank, not knowing to whom the money
belonged, but only that it was deposited
to the credit of the Chicago firm, ap.
propriated the money to pay the over
draft, The plaintiffs filed bill to re.
cover the money, and Judge Gresham
rendered decision holding that they
were entitled to it.
Sale by sample-Rejection Of goods
Reasonable time-A quantity of shoes
were sold by sample, part of them being
received by the vendee on the llth OF
the month and port on the 18th. Some
OF the shoes were sold by the vendee,
and several pairs were returned as defec.
tive. Upon examination the shoes were
found inferior to the sample, the defects
not being discoverable on an ordinary
inspection. On the 25th of the same
month the vendee notified the vendor
that the goods were inferior, and asked
what disposition should be mede of
them. The vendor notified the vendee
that no reduction would be made, where.
upon the latter returned the shoes to the
vendor. The Superior Court of Ken
tucky held, in the case of Clifford ct al.
VS.. Murine, that the jury were author
izsd to conclude that the examination
and rejection were made within reas.
enable time, and that such being the
case, the vendee was not deprived of the
right of rejection, by the fact that he
had placed tine goods in his store for
sale, and had sold some of them.
CUSTOMS DECISION = SUGAR DUTIES
TREATY WITH DENMARK.
An interesting point has just been
decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States in the case of Bartram ct
al. VS.. Robertson. The plaintiffs, New
York sugar brokers, brought suit against
the defendant, Collector of the Port of
New York. to recover back O large
amount of money exacted by him as
duties upon sugar and molasses imported
from the island of st. Croix, one of the
possessions of Denmark. The plaintiffs
insisted that the cargoes imported by
them should be entered free of duty,
Dasing their claim ON the fourth article
of the treaty with the King of Denmark.
That article provided that mo higher
duties shall be imposed upon the i'm.
portation into the United States of any
article, the produce of manufacture of
the dominions of his Majesty, the King
of Denmark, and no higher or other duties
shall lie imposed on the importation into
the said dominions of any article the
produce or manufacture of the United
states han are or shall be payable on
the like being the produce or manufac-
ture of any other foreign country" The
plaintiffs contended that their cargoes
should be free because like articles pro-
duced in the Sandwich Islands were adj
mitted free of duty. The government
filed demurrer to the complaint. The |
demurrer was sustained IN the United |
States Court at New YoIk, and the Su.
preme Court has affirmed the decision of
the court below against the importers.
holding that the treaty with Denmark
does not bind the United States to ex-
tend to that country without compensa-
tion privileges which it has conceded to
the Hawaiian Islands in exchange for
concessions.
CLOUD BURST AT OBERLIN.